But maybe the plandemic is beginning to unravel. Romainian MEP condems Ursula Von Der Leyen (in perfect English) for agreements with big pharma
And this is him representing 5 MEP’s all from different countries.
But maybe the plandemic is beginning to unravel. Romainian MEP condems Ursula Von Der Leyen (in perfect English) for agreements with big pharma
And this is him representing 5 MEP’s all from different countries.
Apparently there’s been a run on the banks, since the Emergency Act was invoked, which meant that Canadians could have their bank accounts seized by the government. This might account for Turdeau’s swift reversal.
This is also heavily connected to events in the Ukraine, a country where there’s lots of dirty money.
I dunno. It’s very hard to figure out what’s really going on with these sort of situations.
I’d hesitate to claim this as a canon source but offers some additional context
Karen, I’ve watched the speech by Donald Neil Plett. Good stuff. I’ve yet to watch the speech by the Premier of Alberta.
Yet what none of them directly address is this (although Donald Neil Plett does briefly touch upon it)…
These are unidentified thugs set against the Canadian people (the clip is from Ottawa last weekend). Same stuff happens in France, Germany, et al.
It’s said that these are ‘UN troops’. Whatever. In France they are mostly young men from eastern Europe who are given a brief two week course, then they are put on the streets of Paris, or wherever, to beat the crap out of peaceful protestors. This on its own should be enough to bring down governments.
But it’s a case of, Don’t look here, Look there; in this instance the evil mastermind Putin (DA DA DAH!) invading Ukraine.
I won’t keep mentioning Scotty.
Yes Rob I have seen pretty convincing reports along similar lines. One account said a series of buses picked a bunch of people up at an airport and the vehicles were parked in a secure compound. The occupants went who knows where…? To change into their crisp new RoboCop outfits? Then, Mission KKKanada complete, onwards and upwards, it’s off to Kiev, Odessa, Beirut, …
As well as turning up in Paris these shadowy (UN?) thugs for hire have surfaced at protests in UK and I strongly suspect they have been split into ‘rioters’ and ‘cops’ for various live exercises eg shopping centre ‘invasion’, comical terrorism of Broadcast House, etc. There may well be a little faction spreading Novichok around Winchester, Warminster, and Bath. (Keeps the mileage claims, uh, I mean risk, down if the travel radius from Porton Down is minimised.)
But I expect my dark cynicism is the result of my naïve immersion in the dank Seas Of Disinformation. I’ve been Online Harmed. Can I have a little coloured flag to gather disciples under?
More details/video here:
Actually a very apt idiom as Scotty was always prone to catastrophising (“These dilithium crystals cannae take much more Captain…”) and then later on delivering what he knew was achievable in the first place. Not quite Hegelian but in a similar holodeck.
(Revealing dangerous levels of familiarity with Star Trek lore here.)
Lore. Geddit. I’ll get my coat.
Cremola on the Canadian situation as a foretaste of The Great Reset. The powers siezed by Trudeau on a temporary basis (eg to have your funds cut off on a whim or an allegation) are similar to the powers governments will have routinely under the WEF plan. I say governments, make that governments and banks. And Big Tech.
The Cremola text is below but there are videos on the main Cremola article; the first looks like good coverage of the Trudeau situation and the protests. I looked around and to see this elsewhere you would need to sign up to Red Ice membership
On the Cremola link you can watch the vids for the next 42 hours, before it also sinks underneath the ice.
The second Breaking Points clip you can watch on Youtube
Full Blown Dictator
In another clip ppposition MP Candice Bergen calls for apolgies from Trudeau, you can see or read that here at the Heil)
Tamara Lich calls for protestors to remain peaceful.
25/2/22 Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act in Canada
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has invoked the Emergencies Act in response to the trucker Freedom Convoy
Under this act, financial institutions can seize bank accounts of protesters and anyone who has donated $25 or more to the protest. Government can also revoke the drivers’ licenses of protesters
Trudeau is showing the world what Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset is really all about for the average person. If we go along with their financial reset to a centralized global digital currency, the central bankers can and will financially cripple anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason
The Emergencies Act also gives Trudeau the power to prohibit public assemblies (including blockades), compel individuals and companies to provide “essential services,” and impose fines of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to five years for breaching any of the declared emergency measures
Opposing the prime minister’s unprecedented power grab are the premiers of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney pointed out that the nation already has “all the legal tools and operational resources required to maintain order,” and that “no relevant additional powers of resources” can be granted by the Act
Well, well, well. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just let the deep state cat out of the bag for all the world to see. The premature disclosure and honest preview of what’s in store for the people of the world is perhaps the silver lining in all of this.
By invoking the Canadian Emergencies Act1 of 1988 to allow for the blanket revocation of protesters’ driver’s licenses and seizure of their bank accounts — and anyone who made even a nominal donation to their cause — Trudeau is showing the world what Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset is really all about for the average person.
If we go along with their financial reset to a centralized global digital currency, the central bankers can and will financially cripple anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. That’s more than sufficient leverage to keep most people in line.
The World Economic Forum didn’t declare that by 2030 “you will own nothing and have no privacy”2 for nothing. They mean it. You won’t even own your own body, if they get their way. Their aim is complete control over every minutia of your life. Only they will be free to live and rule as they please.
Trudeau Gives Himself Dictatorial Powers
As reported by The Defender:3
“In a move that gives him ‘sweeping powers,’ Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked — for the first time in history — Canada’s Emergencies Act in response to what political commentator Krystal Ball characterized as a ‘pretty much completely peaceful’ protest.
Those powers include giving Canadian banks the ability, without a court order, to ‘immediately freeze or suspend accounts’ of any Canadians’ who have donated $25 or more to the trucker convoy fundraising accounts.
In an episode of ‘Breaking Points With Krystal and Sagaar,’ Ball’s co-host, Saagar Enjeti, said the Canadian government also will be ‘seizing any funds that go towards the protests, including cryptocurrency.’
With the powers granted to the government by the Emergencies Act ‘they can not only seize and suspend your driver’s license forever, they can also go and take money out of the owner of the truck’s bank account,’ Enjeti said.
‘So, we are looking at full-fledged financial warfare on the truckers … You have here the Canadian Prime Minister, who is our neighbor to the north, invoking the Emergencies Act, declaring all out financial warfare on his own citizens and suspending civil liberties … in a supposedly free and open society,’ Enjeti said. If this is happening in your country, ‘you [clearly] don’t live in a free country,’ he argued.”
In addition to giving the Canadian government the authority to seize bank accounts of citizens without court order, the Emergencies Act also gives Trudeau the power to:4,5
To understand just how ridiculous the invocation of this Act is under current circumstances, consider that it was designed for use only in times of extreme crises,6,7 such as a wartime emergency where there’s an express threat to the security and sovereignty of the nation. The situation must be “urgent and critical” and “seriously endanger the lives, health or safety of Canadians.”
The protests may be a nuisance and many people may disagree with them, but that doesn’t justify this decision. ~ Toronto Sun
Moreover, the Act may only be invoked if the emergency cannot be addressed by any other federal law in existence, and/or if it exceeds provinces’ ability to effectively address the situation.
Trudeau Accused of Untruthful and Hateful Rhetoric
Opposing the prime minister’s unprecedented power grab are the premiers of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney pointed out that the nation already has “all the legal tools and operational resources required to maintain order,” and that “no relevant additional powers of resources” can be granted by the Act.8
Kenney also stated the obvious when he told the prime minister to “end the cross border trucker vaccine mandate, as it serves no useful public health purpose.” That would be the peaceful solution to the blockade.
The Canadian Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has also denounced Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act, calling “the use of emergency powers unjustified by Ottawa facts and reality.” Despite that, the Canadian Parliament voted to approve Trudeau’s motion to invoke the Act, with 185 votes for and 151 against, Monday February 21, 2022.9
According to Trudeau, the trucker protest is impeding commerce and preventing people from going to work and making a living. With that, he’s basically condemning his own actions, as Trudeau himself has shut down businesses and prevented people from making a living, on and off, for the last two years. The hypocrisy is grotesque beyond words. Yet he’s gone even further than that.
‘Trudeau Has Gone Too Far’
In a February 15, 2022, editorial, the Toronto Sun denounced the prime minister’s hateful rhetoric against Canadian citizens and accused him of fanning flames of hate of his own making:10
“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s unjustified invoking of the Emergencies Act is deeply problematic and will have long-lasting consequences for the country. Ever since the freedom convoy first touched base in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, the PM has gone out of his way to increase the tensions.
The Liberal government appeared to be hoping for some sort of Jan. 6 style event as happened in the United States last year. All of their rhetoric indicated they were keen to see such an event go down. It never did. The convoy has been peaceful throughout …
Trudeau has called protesters every name in the book even though they are a diverse crowd in every sense of the word. Now he is giving himself extraordinary powers to deal with these protests. One of the most disturbing parts is how they can now dictate that banks freeze people’s accounts without a court order …
Trudeau … wants division and more hostility … The protests may be a nuisance and many people may disagree with them, but that doesn’t justify this decision. The only thing that can be said in defense of Trudeau’s invoking of the Emergencies Act is that it was his incompetence that made such an extreme measure necessary.”
Indeed, Trudeau’s rhetoric has been anything but unifying. First, he called the Freedom Convoy a “small minority fringe” that are expressing “unacceptable views.” He must’ve changed his mind, albeit privately, seeing how a sane leader is unlikely to invoke radical emergency powers for a small group honking horns.
Then, he insisted that the protesters were a bunch of “racists” and “misogynists” waving Nazi flags and stealing food from the homeless. Several have now publicly demanded he retract such statements and issue apologies.
Parliament Members Demand Apologies
Among them is conservative parliament member Candice Bergen, who demanded Trudeau apologize for his “hateful rhetoric” against “peace loving, patriotic Canadians.”11 In an impassioned speech, Bergen also reminded House members that Trudeau himself “wore blackface more times than he can remember.”
Another is Melissa Lantsman, a Jewish conservative MP, whom Trudeau accused of “standing with people who wave swastikas.” Lantsman called Trudeau’s words “dangerous and disgraceful.” According to the Toronto Sun:12
“The controversy stems from an ugly exchange in the House of Commons Wednesday in which Lantsman accused Trudeau of fanning ‘the flames of an unjustified national emergency’ by calling Freedom Convoy truckers ‘racist’ and ‘fringe.’
Trudeau’s response was a shocking low blow. ‘Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas, they can stand with people who wave the Confederate flag. We will choose to stand with Canadians who deserve to be able to get their jobs, who need to get their lives back,’ said Trudeau.
Suggesting a Jewish MP would stand with a Nazi flag was so repugnant that Speaker Anthony Rota scolded members, and ‘that includes the Right Honourable Prime Minister,’ for using ‘inflammatory words in the House.’
Calling it ‘terrible,’ Trudeau’s half-brother Kyle Kemper said ‘he’s acting like a bully.’ ‘A new low, even for Trudeau,’ tweeted Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre. ‘He falsely accused a Jewish MP and descendant of Holocaust survivors of standing with people who wave swastikas. She did not.’”
Michael Mostyn, CEO of B’nai Brith Canada, a Jewish service organization, also condemned Trudeau’s comment to Lantsman, saying “This misperception should not be permitted to stand. We would hope the prime minister promptly addresses this matter.” So far, Trudeau has done nothing of the sort.
In a video (above), free speech advocate and trucker convoy organizer Tamara Lich predicted her arrest and made a tearful plea to protesters to remain peaceful. The next day, Lich was picked up and put in handcuffs by Ottawa police.
Legal experts are now warning that Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act could have consequences for generations to come. According to Marco Mendicino, “public reports” indicate that people with “extremist ideological positions” may be participating in the blockade, hence the government’s need for emergency powers.
However, as noted by law professor and executive director of Rights Probe, Bruce Pardy, that’s hearsay at best, and acting on rhetoric alone sets a dangerous precedent.13
“Just for a moment, consider the implications. This is a government that has invoked an emergency statute on its own admission on the basis of something that somebody has said,” Pardy said.14 “They have no actual violence occurring. They have no intelligence about threats of violence occurring. I’m sure you can work out what the consequences are if this is to be considered a proper use of the Emergencies Act …
Freedom now means, apparently, safety. The rule of law means governments taking control of things for ‘proper outcomes.’ Violence can now mean words. Honking has been called violence, and they now are taking that literally.
They have said they’re proceeding against violence, and what do they have? They have words, they have rhetoric, they have an expression of a political position. And it is that rhetoric, it is that political position that they are afraid of, and that constitutes the emergency …
If this invocation of the Emergencies Act is valid, then governments have the power to declare emergencies and crush any peaceful protest, any dissent, that threatens their political fortunes and ideology, and that’s not the kind of country we want to live in …”
Cecil Lyon, a dispute resolution legal expert from Ontario, also vehemently opposed Trudeau’s actions, calling it a “sledgehammer approach” that shows the government is “losing its way and not looking at how you should resolve a dispute.”15
Trudeau Is Profiting From COVID Jab Monopoly
Thankfully Trudeau lifted the Emergency Powers Act on Wednesday two days ago. Clearly, Trudeau is wedded to vaccine mandates, and willing to do just about anything to keep them in place. One wonders whether the Trudeau Foundation’s ownership stake in Acuitas Therapeutics — rumored to be around 40%, per Dr. Robert Malone16 — might be influencing his behavior?
Acuitas makes the lipid nanoparticle delivery system that Pfizer/BioNTech uses in its COVID shot.17 In a February 12, 2022, video (above), David Martin, Ph.D., discussed Trudeau’s conflicts of interest at depth, saying:18
“Trudeau is controlling the illegal monopoly on BioNTech’s and Moderna’s form of injection. You heard me right. The thing that’s being injected into people across the country and around the world is in fact an economic boon … that pays right into the pockets of Trudeau.
He’s not interested in public health. He’s interested in lining his pockets, because regardless of the shot you take, Canada gets the coin …
Trudeau is running a monopoly. This is Chicago in the 1920s, this is the mob, and we need every American, every Canadian and everyone around the world to join together and inform themselves on the crimes that Justin Trudeau is pushing under the guise of public health.”
Sources and References
Just read your Trudeau post. The Canadian foretaste of the Great Reset that Cremola discusses (post above) and its quick withdrawal may not be accidental.
Perhaps TPTB didn’t fancy rolling out the digital handcuffs while the spotlight and the heat (the spotheat?) were on.
Yes that is plausible. In a way this reinforces my Lab Kanada hypothesis that all these moves are Proofs Of Concept by another name. Was it Mike Pompeo who described Virus as a “live exercise”?
I may have dreamed it.
Can’t quite get past the namealike thing with Candice Bergen, the memory- anchor to Soldier Blue is more than a little unsettling.
Pretty detailed report (below) from CHD. Govt wrongly applied emergencies act.
Not quite over yet
Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, who attended the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, said the government will appeal the decision.
Note the pedigree of the above Schwabspring.
The Canadian government said it will appeal Tuesday’s ruling by Canada’s Federal Court that the government’s use of the Emergencies Act in 2022 to disperse truckers protesting the government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates violated several articles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In a historic decision, Canada’s Federal Court on Tuesday ruled the Canadian government’s use of the Emergencies Act in 2022 to disperse truckers protesting the government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates was “unreasonable” and violated several articles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The truckers, dubbed the “Convoy for Freedom,” organized a cross-country protest beginning in January 2022, following a Jan. 15, 2022, order by the Canadian federal government mandating the vaccine for all cross-border U.S. and Canadian truckers.
In his 190-page ruling, Justice Richard G. Mosley said the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act “does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration.”
The court ruled that invoking the Emergencies Act infringed upon Section 2(b) of the Charter, which protects freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, and Section 8, which pertains to the right to be secured from unreasonable seizure.
Mosley, who according to Global News “is a 21-year veteran of the Federal Court and is a respected voice on national security legal matters,” found that the freezing of protesters’ bank accounts amounted to such seizure.
Arguments in the case were heard over three days in April 2023, CTV News reported.
EMERGENCIES ACT INVOCATION DECLARED UNREASONABLE BY FEDERAL COURT!!! pic.twitter.com/IGD6W44es2
— Christine Van Geyn (@cvangeyn) January 23, 2024
Plaintiffs included the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), Canadian Frontline Nurses and five individuals — two of whom “had their bank accounts frozen.”
According to The Epoch Times, the plaintiffs “argued … that the Liberal government did not meet the legal threshold to invoke the legislation in response to the protest.”
In a statement provided to The Defender, attorneys for the Canadian Frontline Nurses said:
“We are proud to be the party that initiated the application to the Federal Court challenging the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy protest.
“We are pleased that the Federal Court agreed with our position that the Trudeau government’s action in invoking the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and outside their jurisdiction and that it was a violation of Canadians’ rights and freedoms under the Charter.”
Tom Marazzo, a spokesperson for the Freedom Convoy and author of “The People’s Emergency Act: Freedom Convoy 2022,” told The Defender, “The ruling by Judge Mosley was a great victory for all who participated and supported the Freedom Convoy.”
“When the government overreaches, as the Provincial, Municipal and Federal governments did, it is up to the citizens to remind them that they work for us and that we determine the direction of Canada. Unfortunately, the political class in Canada see themselves as royalty and not as simple representatives.
“Judge Mosley also reminded the Liberal/New Democratic Party government that they don’t rule over Canadians with impunity.”
Marazzo was referring to Canada’s ruling government coalition led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, who attended the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, said the government will appeal the decision.
According to the CBC, this may lead to “a legal battle that could go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.”
Ruling ‘a rebuke’ to the Canadian government
According to The New York Times, The Freedom Convoy resulted in “encampments of trucks in the nation’s capital.” In response, and as the convoy reached Ottawa, Canada’s federal government invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in its history on Feb. 14, 2022.
Tuesday’s decision is “the first instance of a court delivering a rebuke to Mr. Trudeau over his handling of the protest,” the Times wrote.
According to CTV News, the government argued “that the national security risks stemming from the protests justified its use.”
CTV News reported that the act “allowed the federal government to enact wide-sweeping but temporary powers,” which CBC said included “extraordinary powers to remove and arrest protesters … the power to freeze the finances of those connected to the protests [and] the ability to commandeer tow trucks to remove protesters’ vehicles.”
The Times reported that, under the act, “an enormous force of police officers from across the country finished clearing the streets” in Ottawa — an operation during which 230 protesters were arrested
The bank accounts of 257 Canadians were frozen under the act, The Countersignal reported.
Today’s Federal Court decision is a powerful reminder to Canadians that the rule of law must be applied equally to all individuals, regardless of whether they are a protester or the Prime Minister. Upholding and protecting our democratic values requires us to adhere to the… https://twitter.com/echipiuk/status/1749845799939527047
— Eva Chipiuk, BSc, LLB, LLM (@echipiuk) January 23, 2024
CBC reported that the Canadian government “has long argued the measures it took under the Emergencies Act were targeted, proportional and temporary.”
But Canadian writer and blogger Margaret Anna Alice, whose writings have focused on health, politics, mass control and propaganda, with a focus on COVID-19, told The Defender, “This single act of peaceful noncompliance triggered a cascade effect that dissolved the mental enslavement keeping the populace under the thrall of tyranny.”
“That is precisely what occurred as freedom convoys began erupting all over the world,” Alice said. “And yet, as this peaceful movement rose, so did the government’s tyranny.”
In his ruling, Mosley said he initially believed invocation of the Emergencies Act was justified as a response to an “unacceptable breakdown of public order,” but that the plaintiffs’ arguments swayed him.
“There was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the decision to do so was therefore unreasonable and ultra vires,” he wrote.
The judgement against the #emergenciesact is a catastrophic rebuke of Trudeau and his POEC. All he had to do was walk across the street and meet with #TamaraLich + #ChrisBarber. Instead he chose to traumatize us with violence and tyranny. Trudeau must resign.@thevivafrei… pic.twitter.com/bgDysDxyp3
— Trish Wood (@WoodReporting) January 23, 2024
“Trudeau and his cabinet did not make even a single attempt to engage with the truckers. In blatant violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they leapt to invoking the Emergencies Act without meeting the necessary threshold,” Alice said.
Joanna Baron, plaintiff and CCF executive director, told the CBC the decision is a “huge vindication for many people.” In a statement CCF provided to The Defender, Baron said, “The invocation of the Emergencies Act is one of the worst examples of government overreach during the pandemic.”
Christine Van Geyn, CCF’s litigation director, said the ruling is “a complete vindication of the position of civil liberties organizations who viewed the invocation of the Emergencies Act as illegal, unjustified and unconstitutional.”
Speaking to the CBC, Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director of the CCLA, said “Emergency is not in the eye of the beholder. Emergency powers are necessary in extreme circumstances, but they are also dangerous to democracy.”
CCLA attorney Ewa Krajewska told Global News, “I think it’s in the interest of this government and future governments and all Canadians that the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act remains high.”
The ruling elicited reactions from across the political spectrum in Canada. Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party, the country’s main opposition party, tweeted:
BREAKING: Judge rules Trudeau broke the highest law in the land with the Emergencies Act.
He caused the crisis by dividing people. Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens. As PM, I will unite our country for freedom.
Sign here to fire Trudeau and unite… pic.twitter.com/k7d9VxozCK
— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) January 23, 2024
Journalist and podcaster Trish Wood told The Defender, “The trucker protest was a classic class struggle [involving] citizens taking on the power elites and winning until government decided it had had enough,” adding that “This decision restores some power back to the people.”
Greg Hill, a captain with Air Canada who was suspended in 2021 for not complying with Canada’s vaccine mandate and who subsequently became director of the Free to Fly advocacy group, told The Defender “We certainly welcome the decision. The unjustified and unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act resulted in grave professional and personal loss for thousands of Canadians — damage that’s ongoing.”
Internationally acclaimed novelist Colin McAdam attended the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa. He told The Defender “There are many things to be happy about with this decision, not least the declaration that the government acted illegally.”
“What is most encouraging is that the ruling upholds certain sections of our Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, which has otherwise been a feckless document through the COVID years,” he said. “I like that it has been acknowledged in law that when people fight for their rights, those rights are paramount to inconvenience.”
Alex Pattakos, Ph.D., co-founder of the Global Meaning Institute and contributing writer for Psychology Today, is unvaccinated and was unable to travel while Canada’s vaccine mandates were in effect. He told The Defender invocation of the Emergencies Act was “a stain on Canada’s identity and history.”
“It’s a reflection of the Trudeau government’s fear of its citizens and a manifestation of a ‘totalitarian movement’ it has been advancing in the name of the public good,” he said.
Freezing protesters’ accounts an ‘unreasonable search and seizure’
Mosley’s ruling referred to the freezing of hundreds of protesters’ financial accounts. In writing that this action violated Section 8 of the charter, Mosley said the government’s decision to freeze the accounts, even if for a “pressing and substantial” reason, was “not minimally impairing,” as “less impairing alternatives” were available to the government.
He added that freezing the accounts amounted to “unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons” and infringed upon freedom of expression, “as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace.”
TD, Scotia, BMO, RBC et al froze the Accounts of Canadians because they didn’t fight back for their customers.
They didn’t fight for Canadians when they should have.
— Tom Marazzo (@TomMarazzo) January 24, 2024
This rejects arguments made by the Canadian government when the measures were invoked. According to The National Post, federal lawyer Timothy Huyer claimed at the time, “The Emergency Economic Measures Order does not seize any assets.”
Notably, Mosley’s ruling also found that the Canadian government’s action did not infringe upon people’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
Mosley did rule that the Canadian government was wrong in its application of the Emergencies Act, under which a national emergency can be declared only if the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”
“The act defers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s [CSIS] definition of such threats [including] serious violence against persons or property, espionage, foreign interference or an intent to overthrow the government by violence,” CBC said.
Testimony heard by the Public Order Emergency Commission, a public inquiry examining the invocation of the Emergencies Act, revealed CSIS did not believe the Freedom Convoy posed a threat to national security, The Epoch Times reported.
According to CBC, the inquiry, led by Justice Paul Rouleau, heard from over 70 witnesses and reviewed more than 7,000 documents — and found that Trudeau met the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act.
CBC reported that Rouleau determined, “Lawful protest descended into lawlessness, culminating in a national emergency.” However, he acknowledged that he did not consider the factual basis for the invocation “overwhelming” and added that “Reasonable and informed people could reach a different conclusion” from his.
In its defense, the Canadian government cited the seizure of a cache of weapons, body armor and ammunition in Coutts, a town in Alberta where the border with the U.S. was blockaded by truckers, according to CTV News, which added that four men are awaiting trial on charges of conspiring to murder Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers.
According to Global News, “Much of the Coutts blockade was cleared prior to the Feb. 14, 2022, declaration of a public order emergency, the first step in invoking the act.”
According to The Countersignal, less than a day before the invocation of the act, Trudeau was told by a national security adviser that there was potential for a “breakthrough” in talks with the Freedom Convoy protesters.
And according to an investigation by Public, the Trudeau government used fake intelligence to frame participants in the Freedom Convoy as “violent extremists” and then shared the information with other “Five Eyes” countries.
Global News reported that “CCLA successfully argued that the existing laws of Canada were sufficient in dealing with the blockades and extraordinary powers granted by the Emergencies Act were not needed.”
In his ruling, Mosley wrote that “The harassment of residents, workers and business owners in downtown Ottawa and the general infringement of the right to peaceful enjoyment of public spaces there, while highly objectionable, did not amount to serious violence or threats of serious violence.”
“Sadly, the concept of a ‘state of exception’ is used by many governments today as the rule, not the exception, in order to transcend the rule of law, suspend freedoms and exercise what otherwise would be considered government overreach,” Pattakos said.
McAdam said what he observed during the protests in Ottawa was far from violent.
“When I was on Parliament Hill in the early part of the convoy, there was a beautiful feeling of celebration and togetherness,” he said. “As the weeks passed this dissipated. By the time the Emergencies Act was declared, the scene was more Orwellian. If I had simply stood on the Hill in those final days with a ‘placard,’ as the judge hypothesized, I could have been arrested and my bank account frozen.”
Tucker takes down Trudeau:
“We came to bring the fragrance of freedom to the rotting corpse of despotism.”
He says Canadians “have it in them to throw off the yoke of totalitarianism.”
— Kat Kanada (@KatKanada_TM) January 24, 2024
Canadian government to appeal, ‘convinced’ it was ‘the right thing to do’
At a press conference in Montreal on Tuesday, Freeland said the federal government will appeal Mosley’s decision, while according to CBC, Justice Minister Arif Virani cited the inquiry’s findings and said it “also informs our decision to appeal.”
“I would just like to take a moment to remind Canadians of how serious the situation was in our country when we took that decision,” Freeland said, in remarks quoted by CTV News. “The public safety of Canadians was under threat. Our national security, which includes our national economic security, was under threat.”
“It was a hard decision to take,” she said. “We took it very seriously after a lot of hard work, after a lot of careful deliberation. We were convinced at the time — I was convinced at the time — it was the right thing to do, it was the necessary thing to do … I remain and we remain convinced of that.”
Sarah Choujounian of the Canadian Frontline Nurses told The Defender she was not surprised by the government’s reaction.
“We expected that they would appeal if they lost,” she said. “At the moment, we are not sure what this means for anyone affected by these measures. We hope that, in time, justice will be served. One thing is for sure, it will be much harder for anyone to impose the Emergencies Act in the future, and we see that as somewhat of a victory for now.”
Marazzo said the appeal “is yet another demonstration of the Liberal government’s hubris,” adding that “Unsurprisingly, the government is denying any accountability and plans to continue their abuse of Canadians with an appeal. Regardless, we need to remain steadfast and unmovable in working for a return to truth, principle and justice.”
In CCF’s statement, Van Geyn said that the government now has “a mountain to climb” after Tuesday’s ruling, adding, “We look forward to the fight.”
And in remarks shared with CTV News, University of Ottawa associate professor of criminology Michael Kempa, Ph.D., said the federal court’s decision is “legally binding” and “sets a legal precedent” — unlike the conclusion reached by the inquiry.
With today’s court ruling, the Freedom Convoy has been vindicated. The abuse of power deployed by this current crop of politicians, requires full accountability.
Never forget what they did, but always celebrate the beauty in what forced them to do it.
Keep on honking! pic.twitter.com/SNX3RHOyta
— Kris Eriksen (@KEriksenV2) January 23, 2024
Two years of waiting and at least the wait was worthwhile! Great news even if they (the GIC’s) appeal the decision.
I don’t understand “sets a legal precedent” in this context. Nothing stopped them doing it at the time and nothing can stop them doing it again. And won’t it be great to get a definitive ruling from the ICJ in maybe 5 years?
(What the hell is RF ‘death to Arabs’ K Jr. doing here in 5 filters?)
I just pasted the article in.
Unfortunately some people get one thing very right and one very wrong.
It’s content that matters.
This was about the ‘right thing’
Lots on the left like Chomsky want to lock you and me up but I’ll still quote him when he points out something useful. Not so much these days admittedly.
Many covid-opposers are right wing and have unpalatable views on other politics.
I’ve posted about this before.
Lots of it about.
25/10/21 ‘I’m fed up with anti-vaxxers taking up hospital beds’
3/10/21 Anti-vaxxers put lives at risk and are no better than drunk drivers, says Jurgen Klopp
Measles: Anti-vaxxers ‘have blood on their hands,’ says UK health … - CNN(https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/04/health/uk-anti-vaxers-matt-hancock-intl/index.html)
Linkedin: Are anti-vaxxers the new terrorists?
UK terrorism chief calls for ‘national debate’ on criminalizing doubts about Covid-19 vaccine
(This was egged on by Labour; probably some Palestine supporters if you look).
The Labour Party earlier this week demanded the government adopt emergency legislation to impose civil and criminal penalties on social media platforms that don’t immediately remove posts that question the safety of the jab and other “false” materials.
Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth demanded government “deal with some of the dangerous nonsense, nonsensical anti-vax stuff that we’ve seen spreading on social media, which erodes trust in the vaccine” even though no vaccine has yet passed review by UK health authorities and speculation from either “side” of the debate is fully hypothetical.
Can’t do much about it - other than have a single issue forum.
Fair enough Evvy, you can’t be expected to edit all your (massive) cut & paste jobs. . . !
What about my point though? Next time any government, never mind the Cannucks, declare an emergency how can a court ruling about a previous one, in a different time, context, circumstance have any bearing?
Hi @AlanG , I think the comparison here was with Inquiries by commissions that are outside legal institutions but which have some “persuasive authority” when looking at similar events. Court precedents are usually binding on lower courts in the court heirarchy but not on courts of even standing, and will always be more important than commissions of inquiry conducted outside the legal system.
Here I think the important takeaway is found by looking at the decision the other way around - if the Federal Court had found in favour of Trudeau’s cowboy outfit the use of emergency measures could be used at a drop of a hat to suppress civil rights of all sorts. Now they at least they need to think twice, knowing that the lower courts would find it hard to distinguish the Truckers case from future cases involving wide peaceful protest movements, and so injunctions against government overreach would be easier to obtain.
Of course it doesn’t help us in the UK , where as far as I can see the existence of rights are determined by courts according to the size of the defendant’s wallet! Access to the court system itself is denied to most people just on financial grounds - this is a fundamental of the Rule of Claw.
We also need to understand that the Robber Barons of old have written all the laws skewed in their favour with words that can be readily redefined by their friendly mates in the court system wherever “mistakes” have been made at the drafting stage which inadvertently favour the masses.
Thanks @CJ1 yes I think that makes sense, it’s said somewhere that invoking the Emergency act wasn’t in itself a breach of the constitution but it didn’t meet the reasonableness tests as to whether an emergency really existed. Trudeau’s bellicose accusations and refusal to negotiate from the start indicated his intent all along to use this blunt instrument and the court saw through it. Interestingly the judge said he intially agreed with Trudeau but was persuaded by the protestors’ arguments. So it looks like this was a narrow win. I think the precedent means that next time Trudeau or the govt need to play a more canny game, with a less hard line or they will lose again on the same point. Protestors can take note too of course.
Like @AlanG I’m somewhat sceptical about the benefits of the ‘justice system’ be it UK or elsewhere. However, perhaps the point is the criminals always like to be seen as the good guys and it’s they who obey the laws and us plebs (perhaps non-conformists would be a better name) are always guilty even if it’s just thought crimes. A court decision like this makes the judge appear to be one of the good guys.
That said, I agree with @Evvy_dense that after a decision like this, at least Trudeau and his henchmen (and hencewomen) will think twice even though it may not stop them as it seems ‘justice’ is dead and that can applied equally to the UK, Germany, and the US.
Just to end with a meme I saw recently. “What can I do? I’m only one person (or one court case)”, said 7 billion people!
CHD (RFK, except that he’s on leave to run for pres.) was the source of the story. They are a major source of health information. I don’t think good sources can be junked or we’ll end up with none or be forced to stick to one issue.
Also, the other US political leaders are not any better on Israel (people just expected more from Kennedy due to his honest reputation).
Perhaps I’m just too dazed by 'theTrump drug hydroxychloroquine…
“Like @AlanG I’m somewhat sceptical about the benefits of the ‘justice system’ be it UK or elsewhere.”
I didn’t go that far! This court only just picked up a ‘coach and horses’ case on the ‘last notch on the belt’. Had Trudeau been more careful in his syle, the coach and horses would have got through. The safety given by justice systems at best is precarious and gives govts plenty of leeway to navigate it. When they are held to account it’s usually because they have been careless. And as you say Pat the court does not then turn the spotlight on the illegallity of the governmnent’s actions. That makes such gambles taken by govts more or less free of risk as it’s hard for groups to bring cases to court. And when the govt wins they have pushed the boundaries due to setting ‘precedent’.
Good meme - the atomization of the multitudes is a key strategy.
Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal over rides the Canadian Supreme Court in advance
“In reaching its decision, the Tribunal rejected Supreme Court cases, dating from 1939, which hold that Canadians enjoy an absolute constitutional right to express minority opinions on any subject. This allowed the Tribunal to rule that the College has a right to regulate the expression of its members in the name of the public interest.”
‘Misinformation’ leads to misjurisdiction it seems
Hope he wins the planned appeal. Dr Sam White won his UK case on this same free speech basis.